tv [untitled] February 16, 2011 12:00pm-12:30pm PST
street, about a half a block from the hall of justice. supervisor mirkarimi: the community court that with established for the tenderloin- soma area, is there>> that is a there is interface between the two programs. there are many defendants or offenders who wind up at the community justice center. they may be eligible from suitability as well as legal perspective to participate in the adult drug court. if that is the case, they can be transferred to receive those services. >> in the creation of the community justice center, i could not understand why they were not willing to put more
money into the drug courts because it had been proven so effective whereas i thought it was just adding another bureaucratic step. now that there has been some testing, i was curious about level of interface between community justice and drug court. you're not far from each other geographically but demographically you are probably taking in a fair amount of similar populations. i was just trying to get a little bit of feedback. thank you very much. if we have no further questions, we can go to public comments. that is okay. public comment. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i would like to speak out in favor of this item.
i feel our new leadership at the department of public health deserves all our support, so every grant that goes to the department of public health is going to be well spent. since it involves mental health services, i would like to put a reminder that even local government officials are not supposed to miss use mental health services to punish government whistleblowers like myself. thank you. >> are there other members of the public who wish to speak? public, disclosed. we have a motion to send it for with recommendations. seconded without objections. >> item 4 is a resolution authorizing the san francisco department public health to retroactively accept and expand a grant from the substance abuse and mental health services in the amount of -- from the
time of the september 30, 2000 tend through september 29th, to dow's 11. >> this mimics what we spoke about previously. this is an additional grant we hope to use to implement an intensive outpatient program on site at the community justice center located at 557 poll street. the community justice center, which is a collaborative effort between various groups and a superior court has been working to service those who would otherwise wind up under a justice mandate or within the criminal justice system. we would recommend approval of this grant application and we also have the coordinator of the community justice center and with the superior court of california. >>supervisor mirkarimi: relatedo
my previous question, those who are eligible through the community justice center, are they the ones who are deemed in violation just within the borders of the jurisdiction of the community justice center? >> i am with the superior court. primarily, the guidelines that get a defendant to our program is the geographic region of which the cjc serves, not necessarily the case type. the first element of jurisdiction is our primary conduit into the program. we have a list of guidelines in terms of case types served as well. >> it is always --
supervisor mirkarimi: it is always helpful to remind the public, what is the border exactly of the cjc? >> i like to describe the border by neighborhoods as opposed to the map. i can provide that to you or the public. we serve the tenderloin completely, south of market, civic center and union square neighborhood. our lines go out to bush st., all the way to third -- it is quite a big swath of the community. those neighborhoods and police stations are within our jurisdiction. supervisor mirkarimi: it just so happens that my district abuts to your border. it struck an initial concern when this conversation came up almost three years ago. how do you answer the question to people who say we have the
same needs but yet those people who are cited a or are arrested or violations occur outside the board but not out -- but not far outside the border, how would the same people get the same level of service outside of the radius? what do you tell people? >> what we were able to do is offer services on site to any san francisco residence. you do not need a criminal case to access the center. any person who may be in need of the services we have to offer can come to the service center and we will figure out and link them to whatever community resources we have available. we are very aware that communities all over san francisco need those resources
and we invite those whether you have a case or not to access those resources. >> there must be a heavy demand on your limited resources. i would think it is the criminal justice system in particular that is driving some of the demand, depending on the uptick of people requiring diversion or attention. >> our primary concern is the people coming through the criminal justice system, but we did not want to exclude others who may need the resources. supervisor mirkarimi: yet again, this is a very special jurisdiction because there are almost two parallel universes for lack of a better digram -- it is the cjc universe and then the universe outside the cjc. >> we try to not only have the
services people can access on site but we try to create community engagement said that resources and opportunities that might be available to participants cjc can be used by the community at large. we work with groups and other leaders who might be able to provide general resources for people in the community. it's a big component of the community justice center and making it effective. not just what we do in house but how we connect with existing resources in the community. supervisor mirkarimi: it is a three-year grant. is typically in annual income and you are asking for. what happens after the third year? does it fold automatically within dph's budget or is there more grant funding? >> we are exploring different ways to institutionalize the
program after the three years of the grant. the grant does allow for a no- cost extension, so after the third year, if we have not expended all grant dollars, we are allowed to extend them into future years. that is a discussion we're having with leadership as far as how to institutionalize these efforts after the grant sunsets. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor kim: my reading is this is funding, not necessarily an enhancement. >> that's correct. it is using current positions that are underfunded and detailing them to the brick and mortar buildings that are the cjc located at 575 pulled street. supervisor kim: when we talk about to go to thecjc is it that they live in this area or are
arrested and charged in the area? >> both. supervisor kim: so if you are arrested the, you have the option to go to the cjc. >> is not an option. if your crime happens in that jurisdiction, it is processed through the criminal court. but if you live in the community, the judges and other cases referred those individuals to us as well. supervisor kim: if it was a person that lives in the area but got arrested outside the area, it could be taken to cjc. >> we have done cases like that. supervisor kim: you serve approximately 500 people a month. over the two years, 42 clients have successfully completed their treatment and legal
obligations? >> we do not actually serve 500 clients per month. supervisor kim: thecjc currently serves more than 500 people on a monthly basis -- that is what the grant says. >> that a static population of 500 and given time. rather than by hundred brand new and duplicated clients coming to the program in any given month, it is 500 in terms of the static capacity. supervisor kim: that probably needs to be written more clearly than. how many people get served at the cjc? >> apartment? -- per month? we are currently serving 490 clients per day either being monitored by probation or receiving services through thedph providers.
if is a bit more of a static number. those folks, the cases have a there been resolved or their act to of -- or that are actively engaging in treatment. >> so -- supervisor kim: 42 that actually completed the program? >> that was written one year ago, so the numbers have changed. supervisor kim: that's good. >> the federal government took quite a long time. the solicitation was published a year-and-a-half ago. our application was submitted one year ago. it was not until as recently as december that we received our award modifications. supervisor kim: i will not ask any more questions about it grant, but i would like to get the updated numbers. i will definitely come to visit. supervisor chu: are there
members of the public who wish to comment on item number four? >> it good morning, the supervisors. i have lived in san francisco for 59 years. i would like to speak on behalf of this resolution. i think any money the department of public health gets is a step in the right direction. under the leadership of the new director, i feel the money will be well spent and hopefully will improve the efficiency of the department of public health. i think it is obvious that every money the public health department gets is sorely needed by the residents of san francisco. i think it is the responsibility of this committee to make sure the two main hospitals, laguna honda and san francisco general, have -- does not waste money as it has in the past and i would
like to refer to the 2003 performance audit on financial resources at san francisco general hospital. i'm wondering whether one will be done for laguna honda hospital now. thank you. supervisor chu: are there other members of the public that wish to comment on item number four? public, disclosed. we have eight recommendations to send this. we will doubt objection. >> item #5, resolution of proving a first amendment to a memorandum of understanding between the city and county of san francisco, the city of oakland, the city of san jose, the county of alameda and the county of santa clara that establishes a governance structure and procedures for application, allocation, and distribution of federal urban areas and security initiatives grant funds to the bay urban area to extend the term
authorizing the executive director department of emergency management to execute on behalf of the city. >> this would extend the mou for six months while we work on renegotiating a broader and newmou. this was established in 2006. the board approved a that mou and now we ask you to approve a new one in 2007. that expired at the end of last year. we are in the process of negotiating a new one and we have not finished yet. we are asking all the member jurisdictions to extend the current one for six months while we finish our negotiations. we hope to be back in front of you in the spring time with the new mou and then we'll go into details about the changes.
this document does not change the current one, it just extends the current one. i'm happy to answer any questions. supervisor chu: a pretty straightforward item. any members of the public wish to comment on item number five? seeing the end, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to send this item forward? we have a motion to send a set of chord with a recommendation. we can do that without objection. thank you. item number six, please. >> item #6 -- resolution approving the agreement between the city and olin corp. and sodium hypochlorite for, which is estimated to exceed $10 million pursuant to charter section 9 appointed11 -- section9.118b. >> one of purchasing's task is to establish term contracts to
provide specific products for a specified time at prices determined through a competitive bidding process. this allows us to consolidate the needs of multiple departments to achieve economies of scale and it allows the department to utilize the contract and received best prices on an as-needed basis. because the estimate for this proposed contract exceeds $10 million, we are here before you seeking your approval. sodium hypochlorite is a mixture of sodium hydroxide and chlorine. it is an essential chemicals utilized to ensure the safety of public drinking water. it is also used for disinfecting water treatment equipment to meet government regulations and to disinfect with water by removing pathogen's before sending the water out to the day. this contract is critical to the
city's water treatment program and is one of half a dozen contracts that we periodically come to the board seeking approval for. the bid was issued on october 7th, 2010 and bids were due on november 12th, 2010. you will see here a summary of the results. basically, as you can see, olin, the recommended bidder was the low bidder. if you look at the three-year cost, the next low bidder is about $2 million higher, an increase of about 14%. the third bidder was almost $5 million higher, about 34.5% more. the low bidder, olin, is the largest producer of sodium
hypochlorite in california and north america. this is unique in the industry. the product is produced in tracy, calif., and at four plants in the western u.s. to ensure continual product availability. olin has been in business for over a hundred years and the city has approximately 20 years of experience working with this company. as was pointed out in the report, based on the estimated usage, this contract would save the city over $726,000, approximately 13% over the first year. this is compared to current expenditures for the same product. we estimate the contract now will be approximately $14 million for the first three years of the contract.
we have requested the board approved a not to exceed amount of $23.5 million, which would allow oca to exercise one or both of the 21-year extension options to the contract. -- both of the one-year extension options to the contract. i am here to answer any additional questions the supervisors may have. supervisor chu: why don't we go to our budget analyst for the report. >> madam chair and members of the committee, we concur had there would be a savings of about $726,000 in the first year as a result of this competitive bid. we fully support this new
competitive bid to purchase this chemical. we also concur with the not to exceed about 45 years, however, thetwo 1-year options, it's not known now if they will be exercised. our recommendation is, using the actual bid amount for the base time frame to put a not to exceed amount of 14 million -- $14,286,000, and that about is exactly what was bid. >> thank you. just a quick question for the department. i noticed that our budget analysis put together that it is true they had the ability to continue to extend the contract. it looked like what we did was instead of just going to continue the contract, we put it out to bid again. can you explain what the process
was and explain why we did not exercise the additional extension? in this example, it did work out as a cost savings to the city. >> staff goes through a process of reviewing pricing and doing research in that industry and, in looking at the market, it appeared by looking at different indexes that prices had dropped and said the decision was made to actually go out to bid again and test the pricing in the marketplace. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: in terms of that usage question, is it tied to the consumption of water? >> i suspect is tied to the consumption of water, waste water, and rainfall. supervisor mirkarimi: out is that usage compare with in the previous contract time?
i'm curious as to where we are as a city that requires this level of protection based on water consumed and water used through waste water and how that compares with previous practice. >> best months are based on information given to us -- the estimates are based on information to been to us and one of the other factors, not just the use of water and waste water, that would be equipment. to the extent that there are repairs and improvements to reservoirs, etc., the chemical would also be used for that. so it is difficult for us to talk about water usage. supervisor mirkarimi: do you want to answer this? i am curious because looking at
our population statistics, you'd think relative to water usage, the population statistics on potable as opposed to waste water, what exactly is the amount we're treating? >> it has certainly gone down. on the waste water side, is not useful this infection, it is also useful odor control. during the summer time come all large not is used for odor control in the sewers. the consumption of water has decreased significantly. i believe our revenues are down somewhere around 13%. the conservation effort, a necessary effort that has moved forward, we are having a difficult time now having enough water to convey material to a treatment plants. as a result, oliver collection systems, there are more odours present. -- all of our collection
systems, there are more odours present. for the waste water, we use somewhere in the neighborhood of several thousand gallons and it's based on the amount of organic left in the waste water after it has been treated. during the reign, we put another treatment plant on line because consumption will go up. there is a lot more volume, we treat 577 million gallons during the reign. during dry weather, we treat about 80. our treatment plant, we are down around 55 million gallons for our se plant. that's the lowest in its history. >> -- supervisor mirkarimi: that is why masking, based on usage of water and wastewater treatment and if -- that is why i am asking. based on usage of water and
wastewater treated, as that is driving the contract numbers before us? >> there is a piece of that driving it. this is a really low-cost looking at the numbers compared to what we have been spending in recent times. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor chu: why don't we open this item up for public comment. are there members of the public who like to speak on item 6? seeing none, public, disclosed. we have a motion to send this item ford with recommendations. can we do that without objection? without objection. item #7, please. >> resolution approving an emergency public-works contract under san francisco administrative code section 6.60 to replace the two rumple street from bush street to pine street with a contract on not to exceed 421,007 $1. supervisor chu: thank you very
much. do we have a rep on this item? >> we have a director here to talk about the paving portion. the project is -- i'm going to put some pictures up, some before and after pictures on the screen. this is on bulk street between bush and pine. extremely busy street. we had an emergency declaration and that is why we are here today. not to go into dpw portion, but it is couple together. once you dig it up, you have to pay it. it was scheduled to be replaced in 2014, so part of the
disruption to the public, the high traffic area, as you can see from this before picture, there are a lot of patches on the street. after the paving of the street, it looked a lot smoother, certainly. i can answer any questions you have about the project. supervisor chu: why do we go to the budget analyst the port -- public -- budget analyst report. >> in our emergency contract, the departments are authorized to bypass the city's required competitive bidding process in order to expedite, in this case, a sewer improvement project which was declared to be an emergency. we certainly recommend approval of that, with respect to the
replacement of the pavement project as the department just stated, it was scheduled for 2013-2014. that project would normally require competitive bidding and it did not receive competitive bidding under this project because the department decided and i totally understand why, they did not want to disrupt the public twice, so they merged it with the emergency contract. our recommendation to you is to approve the emergency contract. that amount is $328,637. we considered approval -- we consider approval which did bypass the competitive bidding procedures which is contrary to the board of supervisors. we consider that to be a policy matter. that was for